So Cross the Ripper got involved in the investigation. Why did he stop?

[drstrange169]

Not once does Mizen say that he was told "We found this woman in Bucks Row". On has to wonder why.

That’s because Mizen misled the inquest.

That’s not my spin, that’s not your spin, that’s “Just the facts Ma’am”.

“I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said …”
P.C.Mizen.

He went through the whole process of identifying Xmere and gave the rest of his evidence without ever mentioning the fact that there were two carmen present.

Imagine the confusion Mizen would have left for future researchers, luckily for history, Baxter eventually intervened asked point blank,

“There was another man in company with Cross?”

To which Mizen finally had to present the true events of that night,

“Yes. I think he was also a carman.”

That’s not the only confusing piece of evidence he gave. He also told the inquest he didn’t continue “knocking up” but, then admitted he did.

“A juryman - Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted?
Witness - No. I only finished knocking up one person.”

We also have the pre-inquest mystery of when PC Neil denied the story of two men finding the body first, Mizen is reported as saying he saw,

“no man leaving the spot to attract attention…”

Forget for a moment any discrepancy with Xmere, Mizen was also directly at odds with Paul’s pre-inquest account.

Mizen was an unreliable witness. That isn’t speculation, it is a verifiable fact.

[Ausgirl]

I came in here to post something, and it's taken me a few minutes to stop laughing. You lot are comedic gold, bless.

Anyway. Re the question of the thread title:

I should think, were the Ripper ever caught in the act or too close to it for comfort.. (or was afraid that he had been), his very best bet would be to feign innocence and shock, and pretend to have discovered the body.

If he were a local man, whose face had been regularly seen in the area, there'd be little point in obfuscating his identity.

The fact that the Ripper's method of killing barely allowed blood to fall on the victim's own clothing suggests he might have been extremely concerned about getting blood all over himself. Thus, if Xmere really was the Ripper, there's a definite chance he'd have minimal blood on him. If he flipped the victim's clothing over her lower body (as opposed to leaving her shamefully exposed, as happened with other victims) he could get away with saying he thought she was merely drunk but hey, let's look altruistic to boot and hunt up some help from the potentially highly damaging witness to check she's not dead - what a brilliant move (this is the area where I think Christer's arguments are strongest, but more on that later). So all he'd really need to explain away is why he was at that place, at that time. Being a few minutes late for work seems innocuous enough..

I really can imagine 'Xmeripper' (who in my mind is presently a fictional construct, but I'm gonna roll with it..) being on put on the spot and conniving his way out of it, by removing himself as a potential suspect by making himself a valuable and very obliging witness, a man who (hopefully) would not be blamed for nothing. It's brilliant, really good stuff.

Why'd he "stop" involving himself? Well, the internal logic of my 'Xmeripper' construct would demand that he never again allow himself to be that nearly caught. The end. It's that simple, really - he would strive to never put himself in the position of being happened-upon ever again.. so there'd be no need whatsoever (assuming he's successful..) for any protracted bouts of self-promotion as a gormless witness. A sheer necessity, I think, considering how much heat surrounded these murders.

Which leaves only the question of why he used his "other" name. If this was "my" Xmeripper, I'd probably leave that bit out. Because it makes more sense for an innocent man to do something like that, out of panicked desire to distance himself from the horrible crime perhaps.. than for a killer to do so, while also giving his correct address and place of work -- which would, let's face it, make this 'Xmeripper construct' unfeasibly stupid.

[MrBarnett]

I was actually fixing some windows - providing free sight to those who would otherwise live in darkness...

Fish,

When you say windows and mention carpentry, I'm guessing you mean framing. Bit of a busman's holiday, then.

Gary

[GUT]

I was actually fixing some windows - providing free sight to those who would otherwise live in darkness...

Good of you.

If I did it I'd hate to think the result.

[Fisherman]

I was actually fixing some windows - providing free sight to those who would otherwise live in darkness...

[MrBarnett]

I´m off now, to do some carpentry (!).

Just don't try to put a square peg into a round hole.

If the square peg is small enough it will go in, but then you'll be left with four major gaps and we know how difficult it is to explain those away.

[Robert]

I´m off now, to do some carpentry (!).

Just don't try to put a square peg into a round hole.

[GUT]

Not sure where you are coming from, Jon. If you tell me, I will try and answer you tonight. I´m off now, to do some carpentry (!).

What y'all building.

[Jon Guy]

Not sure where you are coming from, Jon. If you tell me, I will try and answer you tonight. I´m off now, to do some carpentry (!).

Don`t worry about it, Christer
I was just intrigued as to whether there may have been two Charles Cross`s, of the same age and living in Bethnal Green in 1888, (and one of them did have a police record)

[Fisherman]

This one has a Bethnal Green association and is very close to Lechmere`s age.

Not sure where you are coming from, Jon. If you tell me, I will try and answer you tonight. I´m off now, to do some carpentry (!).

[Jon Guy]

I´ve come across more than one man with the same name. Why do you ask about this one?

This one has a Bethnal Green association and is very close to Lechmere`s age.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer

Have you ever come across in your research the "fraudulent" other Charles Cross, aged 23 in 1876 and living at 39 Cambridge Rd Mile End ?

I´ve come across more than one man with the same name. Why do you ask about this one?

[Jon Guy]

Hi Christer

Have you ever come across in your research the "fraudulent" other Charles Cross, aged 23 in 1876 and living at 39 Cambridge Rd Mile End ?

[Fisherman]

it seems a bit foolish to give the correct address and the wrong surname if you are trying to avoid someone you believe may be coming after you. Surely it is the address that is the bit you would want to hide.

The theory works from the assumption that Lechmere knew that the cops would either A/ investigate him or B/ not.
Given that the alternative A would have been an open possibility, Lechmere needed to be truthful towards the police to the greatest possible extent. If he lied and was found out, it would spell disaster.

When it comes to his family and aquaintances, the theory resons that he wanted to keep them unaware about his involvment. They could monitor him on an everyday basis, and could easily begin to suspect him.

So there was a dilemma: How to be as truthful as possible to the police and as evasive as possible towards those who knew him intimately?

The answer was:

1. Give the police the real working place, the real address and a name that was one that he could claim a right to. He could not lie about the working place, he could not lie about the address but he COULD claim to use the name Cross at times, and that it was his to use.

2. Serve the family and aquaintances (via the press reporting from the inquest) the name Cross (obscuring him), the real workplace (where hundreds of men worked) and avoid giving the address in front of the inquest (which seemingly was what he did).

Now the police had him nicely registered with information he could claim was correct, whereas the family and aquaintances only had information that a carman named Charles Cross, working at Pickfords, had been a witness at a murder inquest.

Job done.

It´s not as if we could say that it would be more clever to call himself Tristan Longfellow, living at 2 Harley Street and working at the Home Office. If he was checked out, he would be fried.

Nor would it be better to give the name Charles Lechmere, and the real address and working place, if he wanted to keep his involvement from those who knew him.

I think he may well have optimized the information to suit his purposes, if they were what we think they were.

[Columbo]

Sorry, I was being rather pedantic there.

Plus, of course, at the time Polly Nichols murder was generally considered to be the third murder, not the first.

No offense taken